Win64 trial available

[BarryNL]

Anyone who's built an AMD64 system might be interested to know you can
now get a trial 64bit copy of WinXP from this site:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp

 

[Dave C.]

Anyone who's built an AMD64 system might be interested to know you can
now get a trial 64bit copy of WinXP from this site:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp

Holy lawsuits, batman!!! It only runs on 64 bit AMD chips, NOT on 64 bit
Intel chips. I'll bet Intel has already hired a whole ARMY of lawyers over
this one. -Dave

 

[BarryNL]

Holy lawsuits, batman!!! It only runs on 64 bit AMD chips, NOT on 64 bit
Intel chips. I'll bet Intel has already hired a whole ARMY of lawyers over
this one. -Dave

Hmm, either that, or they'll settle for the 64bit version for the
Itanic, which has been around for ages (easily missed though

 

[somebody]

Holy lawsuits, batman!!! It only runs on 64 bit AMD chips, NOT on 64 bit
Intel chips. I'll bet Intel has already hired a whole ARMY of lawyers over
this one. -Dave

I'm assuming you're joking, despite the missing smilies. :-D

-What "64-bit Intel chip"?
Itanic?
There's no customers for desktop WindowsXP for Itanic.
MS does this in order to sell things to people, for profit.
And even if Intel had a case, MS is not scared of them.

ancra

 

[Dave C.]

Holy lawsuits, batman!!! It only runs on 64 bit AMD chips, NOT on 64 bit

I'm assuming you're joking, despite the missing smilies. :-D

-What "64-bit Intel chip"?
Itanic?
There's no customers for desktop WindowsXP for Itanic.
MS does this in order to sell things to people, for profit.
And even if Intel had a case, MS is not scared of them.

ancra

Well my thinking is . . . Intel already has a 64-bit chip, although it is
not marketed to the masses. Wouldn't future Intel 64-bit chips borrow at
least some if not all of the technology from the current Intel 64-bit chips,
though? If so, Intel is SOL as their 64-bit chips are not compatible with a
future OS that is likely to dominate the OS market soon. If I'm right on
that, it would appear that Microsoft is marketing their latest OS to AMD
systems and ignoring Intel systems completely. -Dave

 

[Stacey]

If I'm right on
that, it would appear that Microsoft is marketing their latest OS to AMD
systems and ignoring Intel systems completely. -Dave

And we can then only hope Intel will follow IBM, support Linux and ignore
MS's wants.

 

[S.Heenan]

Holy lawsuits, batman!!! It only runs on 64 bit AMD chips, NOT on 64
bit Intel chips. I'll bet Intel has already hired a whole ARMY of
lawyers over this one. -Dave

Microsoft released the IA-64 version of Windows XP ages ago. Why would Intel
be upset about the release of Windows XP AMD64 ?

 

[Dave C.]

Microsoft released the IA-64 version of Windows XP ages ago. Why would Intel
be upset about the release of Windows XP AMD64 ?

Well if you put it that way . . . ummm, is that a rhetorical question?
-Dave

 

[Ralph Wade Phillips]

Howdy!

Holy lawsuits, batman!!! It only runs on 64 bit AMD chips, NOT on 64 bit
Intel chips. I'll bet Intel has already hired a whole ARMY of lawyers over
this one. -Dave

Uhhh - Why? XP-64's been available for the Intel Itanium since
August 2001(!!!).

RwP

 

[Dave C.]

And we can then only hope Intel will follow IBM, support Linux and ignore

MS's wants.

Even if that came to be, what would that accomplish, exactly? It wouldn't
mean much unless Intel were to change focus and start producing (GOOD!)
software to directly compete with MS Office apps. Linux will support any
piece of hardware ever created or ever even IMAGINED, if enough people have
a desire to see it supported by linux. The thing holding linux back is
Microsoft Office. If Microsoft Office (not a "compatible" program, but the
real thing) were ever ported to linux, it's GAME OVER for Mickeysoft. Until
then, it won't matter what hardware manufacturers throw their support in the
direction of linux. -Dave

 

[Stacey]

Even if that came to be, what would that accomplish, exactly?

Competition? We love what having intel/AMD has done for hardware prices. MS
being a monopoly has drove OS/office apps to be more than the hardware
costs. What do you suppose the next version of windows is going to cost? My
guess is $300+ for a retail version. MS Office is already obcene.

It wouldn't
mean much unless Intel were to change focus and start producing (GOOD!)
software to directly compete with MS Office apps.

And you don't think IBM is interested in pushing this? Open office gets
better with every release, have you tried 1.1? With an MS "seat" costing
well over $500 in basic software, people are really starting to look
elsewhere. The hardware people realize bussinesses can only afford to pay
____ for a machine and the software costs (MS fees) have really eaten into
what the hardware people get of it.

 

[Ruel Smith (Big Daddy)]

I'm assuming you're joking, despite the missing smilies. :-D

-What "64-bit Intel chip"?
Itanic?

The followup to Prescott, dubbed Tejas, is supposedly x86-64 bit. Prescott
will ship with 64 bit extensions that'll be turned off until the new Socket
T chipsets are released. Supposedly, those 64 bit extensions, and the Tejas
processor are both incompatible with x86-64 from AMD. Therefore, the 64 bit
Windows XP won't work with the Prescott or Tejas. Intel users will be
subject to 32 bit computing until Microsoft fixes the issue. Of course,
Intel could license the technology from AMD. Wouldn't that be a kick in the
butt?

There's no customers for desktop WindowsXP for Itanic.

There's no rumors that Itanium will be brought to the desktop, either. It's
not backward compatible with the current installed base of software.

MS does this in order to sell things to people, for profit.

And to squash competition. SuSE already has a 64 bit Linux version out for
AMD. I think Mandrake just released one too.

And even if Intel had a case, MS is not scared of them.

Nor is Intel afraid of MS. Intel has done some very big investing in Linux
in the past few years...



--
Big Daddy Ruel Smith

My SuSE Linux machine uptime:
12:45am up 11 days 15:21, 2 users, load average: 0.31, 0.23, 0.19

My Windows XP machine uptime:
Something less...

 

[Dave C.]

Competition? We love what having intel/AMD has done for hardware prices.
MS

being a monopoly has drove OS/office apps to be more than the hardware
costs. What do you suppose the next version of windows is going to cost? My
guess is $300+ for a retail version. MS Office is already obcene.

And you don't think IBM is interested in pushing this? Open office gets
better with every release, have you tried 1.1? With an MS "seat" costing
well over $500 in basic software, people are really starting to look
elsewhere. The hardware people realize bussinesses can only afford to pay
____ for a machine and the software costs (MS fees) have really eaten into
what the hardware people get of it.

I agree with all you say, completely. But I also see this from the side of
many businesses who are hopelessly addicted to MS Office apps. I chose the
word "addicted" intentionally, BTW. I actually MEANT to imply that it was
an evil plot by mickeysoft to make the whole world dependent on them, and
it's pretty much succeeded. I have not tried Open Office 1.1. But it
wouldn't matter if it was the best darned computer program ever written,
because it is not Microsoft Office. Even if Open Office could open and save
MS Office compatible data files, that still would not be enough to break so
many businesses' dependence on MS Office software. So many businesses have
data files that they've accumulated over many years that they still need
access to. Not to mention the fact that businesses routinely swap data with
other businesses in Microsoft Office format. You'll never convince
businesses to switch to something open source unless you can find ONE open
source "killer app" that will be compatible with ALL VERSIONS of mickeysoft
office applications dating back to the beginning of time. Don't hold your
breath waiting for that to happen. Not even Microsoft could properly code
that software, even if they were inclined to try. Do you see Microsoft
porting Office to linux anytime soon? We're just lucky that linux isn't for
sale, or Microsoft would already own it.

If most businesses go open source, that change is likely to take many
decades to accomplish. It will be pushed by brand new businesses with
owners who embrace open source software from day one. Tragically, these
businesses will still have to maintain wintel machines on-site (or dual
boot) so that they can exchange information with customers and other
companies in MS Office format, when necessary. -Dave

 

[Matt]

Even if that came to be, what would that accomplish, exactly?

Look, Dave (mind if I call you 'Genius'?):

1) Any software that won't run on Intel hardware is at a huge disadvantage.

2) When people buy new computers, they usually get MS software that they
are not allowed to use on any computers they might buy or build later.
Clearly the cost of new software inhibits people from buying new hardware.


If Intel and Nvidia want to speed the demise of MS, they will each
dedicate a million dollars a year to hire people to make sure their
hardware is thoroughly supported by linux as soon as the hardware hits
the market. That way Dell and Gateway could put linux on any new
computers.

When people can save $30-$100 on the OS and hundreds on the office apps,
they will have more to spend on hardware.

It wouldn't
mean much unless Intel were to change focus and start producing (GOOD!)
software to directly compete with MS Office apps.

Oh yeah, that might happen.

Linux will support any
piece of hardware ever created or ever even IMAGINED, if enough people have
a desire to see it supported by linux.

If frogs had wings they could fly.

It would be best for linux to focus on the basics, for instance making
disk DMA work in standard kernels without having to wait a year and a
half (witness: Intel 845 chipset). Linux needs more people like Alan
Cox, who patched the kernel to use the 845's DMA. But that was one of
very many things he was doing then, so it took a long time for his
patches to make it into the standard distros. The hardware makers
should be PAYING people like him.

The thing holding linux back is
Microsoft Office. If Microsoft Office (not a "compatible" program, but the
real thing) were ever ported to linux, it's GAME OVER for Mickeysoft. Until
then, it won't matter what hardware manufacturers throw their support in the
direction of linux. -Dave

Nonsense. There is a natural order of progress in computing technology.
Hardware support has to come before there can be a killer app. And it
will come.

 

[Stacey]

You'll never convince
businesses to switch to something open source unless you can find ONE open
source "killer app" that will be compatible with ALL VERSIONS of
mickeysoft
office applications dating back to the beginning of time. Don't hold your
breath waiting for that to happen.

I don't think it's that far off. People understand this and KNOW that this
is what is keeping linux out of the office. Also if sun (who hates MS) or
someone else comes up with this, that will be a very marketable product and
they know it.

If most businesses go open source, that change is likely to take many
decades to accomplish.

I don't think so. 5 years ago linux had what maybe .5% of the marketplace if
that? It's grown a LOT in the last 5 years and the more abusive MS becomes,
the more converts I've seen. Now that IBM (and more recently Intel) is
behind Linux, I could see things changing much more rapidly, hence
-SCO/Microsoft- going after IBM?

 

[BarryNL]

I agree with all you say, completely. But I also see this from the side of
many businesses who are hopelessly addicted to MS Office apps. I chose the
word "addicted" intentionally, BTW. I actually MEANT to imply that it was
an evil plot by mickeysoft to make the whole world dependent on them, and
it's pretty much succeeded. I have not tried Open Office 1.1. But it
wouldn't matter if it was the best darned computer program ever written,
because it is not Microsoft Office. Even if Open Office could open and save
MS Office compatible data files, that still would not be enough to break so
many businesses' dependence on MS Office software. So many businesses have
data files that they've accumulated over many years that they still need
access to. Not to mention the fact that businesses routinely swap data with
other businesses in Microsoft Office format. You'll never convince
businesses to switch to something open source unless you can find ONE open
source "killer app" that will be compatible with ALL VERSIONS of mickeysoft
office applications dating back to the beginning of time.

OpenOffice is quite happy with MS format files. I've yet to see an MS
format file it can't open/save. It does tend to have some minor display
problems with the more complex stuff, but that's about it. (Note, that
refers to 1.0. v1.1 may be better).

 

[Stacey]

OpenOffice is quite happy with MS format files. I've yet to see an MS
format file it can't open/save. It does tend to have some minor display
problems with the more complex stuff, but that's about it. (Note, that
refers to 1.0. v1.1 may be better).

1.1 is *much* better.

 

[Stacey]

Matt wrote:

It would be best for linux to focus on the basics, for instance making
disk DMA work in standard kernels without having to wait a year and a
half (witness: Intel 845 chipset). Linux needs more people like Alan
Cox, who patched the kernel to use the 845's DMA.

Maybe I missed something? Or maybe I waited long enough to miss this,
Mandrake since 9.0 worked fine with my 845G and DMA. Actually the drive is
much faster in linux than windows.

 

[somebody]

Well my thinking is . . . Intel already has a 64-bit chip, although it is
not marketed to the masses. Wouldn't future Intel 64-bit chips borrow at
least some if not all of the technology from the current Intel 64-bit chips,
though? If so, Intel is SOL as their 64-bit chips are not compatible with a
future OS that is likely to dominate the OS market soon. If I'm right on
that, it would appear that Microsoft is marketing their latest OS to AMD
systems and ignoring Intel systems completely. -Dave

Well, in certain regards, MS's ways are fairly simple. They will do an
OS if there's a market for it, or if they think there is a market for
it. They started this Server edition for Intel and Itanic, years ago,
because Intel persuaded them to do it.
Now much farther down the road, much $ plowed into it, - no customers!
On the other hand, they have this crowd, clamoring outside their doors
for OSes for '86-64. What do you suggest they should do?

Do you see some Itanic desktop users, crowding the horizon like
lemmings?

There are rumours, remember these are just rumours, that Intel
approached MS with the suggestion of a Windows for a different 64-bit
'86-extended ISA than AMD's '86-64.
The only ones having poored money into Windows 32-bit compatible
64-bit technology, sofar, were MS and AMD.
Now Intel suddenly suggests a completely different Windows64 platform,
as the future mainstream desktop. Without technical advantages, years
of further delay, and for the sole reason of killing off AMD. And MS
is supposed to pay for it. And if they will, Intel would do cpus for
it. All while Intel sponsors Linux.
So MS holds up the clenched hand, backside facing Intel, and extends
middle finger. - You have a problem with that?

ancra

 

[zalzon]

Prescott
will ship with 64 bit extensions that'll be turned off until the new Socket
T chipsets are released.

Are you sure about that? Is that true for all Prescott processors and
if so why isn't Intel marketting that fact.

What happens when these T chipset are release? Is a person then able
to do 64 bit computing? Will it work on Longhorn when it comes out?